IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. LPA No. 198/2008. Reserved on : 12th September, Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008.

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. LPA No. 198/2008. Reserved on : 12th September, Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008."

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Indian Succession Act, 1925 LPA No. 198/2008 Reserved on : 12th September, 2008 Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008 AVTAR NARAIN BEHAL Through: Mr.Arvind Nigam with Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocates... APPELLANT Versus SUBHASH CHANDER BEHAL..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Rajan Chaudhary, Advocate. CORAM: HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA HON BLE DR. JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CJ A family dispute and the consequent challenge to the Will dated and Codicil dated executed by late Shri Gopal Das Behal has given rise to the present proceedings. The respondent filed a petition for grant of probate / letters of administration which came to be allowed by the learned District Judge, Delhi, who by judgment dated issued the letters of administration to the respondent. The appellant aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal being FAO No. 420/2003 under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which was also dismissed by the learned single

2 Judge on and the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the same order. When a question arose as to maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal in view of Section 100 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the learned Judges of the Division Bench were of the view that the reasons given by another Division Bench of this Court in Satish Chander Sabharwal and Anr. v. State and Ors. 122 (2005) DLT 170 on the basis of which the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subal Paul v. Malina Paul and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 1928 has been distinguished were not correct and, therefore, the matter requires consideration by a larger Bench. The learned Judges accordingly referred the following question of law for consideration by a larger Bench : Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgement of single Judge of this Court in first appeal would be maintainable having regard to the provisions of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Amendment Act, Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in almost identical facts the Supreme Court in the case of Subal Paul v. Malina Paul(supra) has held that a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the decision of a single Judge passed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act would be maintainable. Learned counsel cited several other judgments in support of this contention. The submission of the learned counsel was that Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 is an independent source of appeal for the matters arising under different enactments, including the CPC, and an amendment in the CPC cannot regulate the maintainability of appeals arising out of other local or special enactments. According to him a Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable, unless expressly excluded by a special statute, in the instant case, the Indian Succession Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Sewing Thread Co. v. James Chadwick and Bros. AIR 1953 SC 357 which has been followed in Subal Paul s case. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench in P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 5152 in order to show that the view expressed in Subal Paul s case has been approved by the Constitution Bench. Learned counsel further contended that the right of appeal is not merely procedural, but is a substantive right and it is vested in a party on the date of institution of suit. Such a right could be taken away only by a subsequent enactment either expressly or by necessary intendment. In this regard, he referred to a judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Colonial Sugar Refinery Company Ltd. v. Irving (1905) AC 369 and also the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the matter of Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury AIR 1957 SC 540. According to him it is

3 evident that Section 100A, as amended in 2002, has not been made retrospective and would not be applicable to pending cases. 3. In our view, in the light of the submissions made at the Bar, the question referred needs to be reframed. The question is: Whether after insertion of the amended Section 100A in the Code of Civil Procedure a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a single Judge in an appeal arising out of a special enactment like the Indian Succession Act 4. In order to answer this question it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Delhi High Court Act, Section 10(1) of the Act provides for a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction which is also known as intra court appeal and the said provision reads as follows : 10(1) Power of Judges (1) Where a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 5 on that Court, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the single Judge to a Division Court of that High Court. Section 15 contains a saving clause and reads as follows : 15 Savings Save as provided in Section 4, nothing in this Act shall affect the application to the High Court of Delhi of any provisions of the Constitution, and this Act shall have effect subject to any provision that may be made on or after the appointed day with respect to that High Court by the Legislature or other authority having power to make such provision. 5. Section 100A was introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure by Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976), which came into force with effect from The Section inserted read as follows : ``100A. No further appeal in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such single Judge in such appeal or from any decree passed in such appeal.'` In Clause 40 of the Objects and Reasons, it is stated as follows : ``Under the Letters Patent, appeals lie, in certain cases, against the decision of a single Judge in a Second Appeal. Such appeal, in effect, amounts to a third appeal. For the purpose of minimising delay in the finality of adjudications, it is not desirable to allow more than two appeals. In the circumstances, new S.100A is being inserted to provide that there should be no further appeal against the decision of a single Judge

4 in a second appeal.'` Section 100A was thus introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure for the first time with an intention to abolish the third appeal. 6. Section 100A was substituted by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) which came into force with effect from It reads as follows : ``100A. No further appeal in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, - (a) where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided, (b) where any writ, direction or order is issued or made on an application under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution; by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such single Judge.'` The Objects and Reasons for the amendment read as follows : ``Justice Malimath Committee examined the issue of further appeal against the judgment of single Judge exercising even a first appellate jurisdiction. The Committee recommended for suitable amendments to Section 100-A of the Code with a view to provide that further appeal in this regard shall not lie. The Committee also recommended for suitable enactment by Parliament for abolition of appeal to a Division Bench against the decision and order rendered by a single Judge of the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. Clause 10 seeks to substitute a new Section 100-A with a view to provide for no further appeal in the above cases.'` The Legislature wanted to take away the further appeals not only from an original decree or order, but even the right of appeal conferred on the litigant against the decisions rendered by a single Judge while disposing of a writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Indian Constitution. The purpose was to avoid a system of entertaining a second appeal in the High Court in all categories of cases. 7. Section 100A was again amended by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) which came into force with effect from At present, Section 100A reads as follows : ``100A. No further appeal in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge.'` In Clause 3(j) of the Objects and Reasons contained in Act 22 of 2002, it is stated as follows : ``(j) appeals to Division

5 Bench of the High Courts in writs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution shall be restored. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 abolished appeals against judgments of a single Judge of the High Court in all cases.'` 8. We may also notice two more provisions of the C.P.C. which have a bearing on the present case, viz. Section 4 and Section 104, which read as hereunder : ``4. Savings. - (1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the proposition contained in sub-section (1), nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any remedy which a landholder or landlord may have under any law for the time being in force for the recovery of rent of agricultural land from the produce of such land.'` 104. Orders from which appeal lies. - (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other order: (a) to (f) (Omitted by Arbitration Act, 1940;) (ff) an order under section 35A; [(ffa) an order under section 91 or section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in section 91 or section 92, as the case may be;] (g) an order under section 95; (h) an order under any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree; (i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in clause (ff) save on the ground that no order or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made. (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.'` 9. The question of maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by a single Judge in appeal arising under a local or special enactment has been dealt with by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions right from the first case of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. (supra). In the said case the question arose whether a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court was maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, Holding that such an appeal was maintainable, the Supreme Court

6 observed : (AIR p. 360 para.7) Section 76, Trade Marks Act confers a right of appeal to the High Court and says nothing more about it. That being so, the High Court being seized as such of the appellate jurisdiction conferred by Section 76 it has to exercise that jurisdiction in the same manner as it exercises its other appellate jurisdiction and when such jurisdiction is exercised by a Single Judge, his judgment becomes subject to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent there being nothing to the contrary in the Trade Marks Act. Referring to clause 44 of the Letters Patent, it was held that the provisions of the Letters Patent were subject to the legislative powers of the Governor- General-in-Legislative Council, and therefore, in the present-day context, subject to the legislative power of the appropriate legislature. But the Court found nothing in the Trade Marks Act restricting the right of appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 10. This question was also considered by a four-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. AIR 1962 SC 256. In this case, a dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator gave an award. An application was made for setting aside the award. That application was rejected. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the High Court under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, A single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award. Thereupon, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed. The question was whether a second appeal was barred. The Court referred to Clauses 10 and 37 of the Letters Patent of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and held that the provisions of the Letters Patent are subject to the legislative power of the Governor-General-in-Council, which in the present day context means, ``subject to the legislative power of the appropriate Legislature'`. It was held that in view of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, only one appeal is maintainable and the right to further appeal is taken away. The Court observed in paragraph 5 as follows : (AIR page 259, para 5) ``By this clause, a right to appeal except in the cases specified, from one Judge of the High Court to a Division Bench is expressly granted. But the Letters Patent are declared by clause 37 subject to the legislative power of the Governor- General in Council and also of the Governor-in-Council under the Government of India Act, 1915, and may in all respects be amended or altered in exercise of legislative authority. Under Section 39(1), an appeal lies from the orders specified in that sub-section and from no others. The legislature has plainly expressed itself that the right of appeal against orders passed under the Arbitration Act may be exercised only in respect of certain orders. The right to appeal against other orders is expressly taken away. If by

7 the express provision contained in Section 39(1), a right to appeal from a judgment which may otherwise be available under the Letters Patent is restricted, there is no ground for holding that clause (2) does not similarly restrict the exercise of appellate power granted by the Letters Patent. If for reasons aforementioned the expression second appeal includes an appeal under the Letters Patent, it would be impossible to hold that notwithstanding the express prohibition, an appeal under the Letters Patent from an order passed in appeal under sub-section (1) is competent.'` 11. The question whether a Letters Patent Appeal would be barred was considered by a Constitution Bench in the case of Gulab Bai v. Puniya reported in AIR 1966 SC 637. In this case, an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act was rejected by a Civil Court. This decision was reversed in appeal by a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. Against the decision of the single Judge an appeal under Clause 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance was filed. The question was whether such an appeal was not maintainable by virtue of Sections 47 and 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Section 47 permitted an appeal to the High Court whilst Section 48 gave finality. The finality prescribed under Section 48 was subject to the provisions of Section 47 and Section 622 of the earlier Code which corresponds to Section 115 of the present Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that an appeal permitted by the relevant clause of the Letters Patent of a High Court cannot be taken away by implication. Referring to a decision of the Privy Council in Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry v. Kali Sundari Debia (10) Indian Appeals 4 the Court also held that the words under any law for the time being in force in Section 104(1) saves a Letters Patent Appeal. 12. In Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Orissa State Finance Corporation and Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 462 the question, whether a Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable, again arose. In this case a status quo order was passed by a trial court. In appeal, a single Judge of the High Court, vacated the order of status quo. The Court following a decision in Resham Singh Pyara Singh v. Abdul Sattar (1996) 1 SCC 49 held as follows : (SCC page 464 para 5) It is settled legal position that right of appeal is a creature of the statute. Against an interlocutory order, an appeal has been provided under Section 104(1) of the Code read with Order 43, Rule 1. In respect of interim injunction, it is covered by Order 43, Rule 1(r). In this case, the order of status quo was passed in an application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code. Therefore, it is not in dispute that it is an order passed by the civil

8 court under Order 39, Rule 1 appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 104 specifically prohibits second appeal against such an order postulating that ``No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section'`. In Resham Singh Pyara Singh v. Abdul Sattar a Bench of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ. has held that against an appellate order of a learned single Judge of a High Court passed by the civil court, a letters patent appeal would not lie by reason of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 104 of the Code. 13. The question whether a Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable against a judgment/order of a single Judge in an order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kanta Sinha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 158. In that case, it was held that such an appeal was maintainable. It was also held that the decision of the Supreme Court in New Kennilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. Orissa State Finance Corporation (supra) was inapplicable to the said case. 14. In Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 1357 it was observed that the Letters Patent is not an enactment, but a Charter of the High Court and that a non-obstinate clause contained in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not cover the Charter of the High Court. 15. We may now refer to the decision of the three Judge Bench in Subal Paul v. Malina Paul (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In this case, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the prayer for issue of probate. An appeal preferred under Section 299 of the Succession Act was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court and letters of administration were granted. In Letters Patent Appeal filed before the Bench, a preliminary objection was raised that no such appeal is maintainable being barred by Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Bench overruled the objection and directed for hearing of the appeal. At this stage, the appellant moved the Supreme Court. The argument was that since the order passed by the District Judge in a contentious proceedings is not a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal would not be from a decree as provided for under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter, sub-section (2) of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a bar as regards maintainability of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters

9 Patent of the Calcutta High Court. After considering the scheme of the Succession Act the Court noted that a right of appeal of a party in a contentious proceedings is to be found in the provisions of Section 299 of the Succession Act itself and not in Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry v. Kali Sundari Debia (supra) and also the judgments of High Court of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay held as follows : (AIR pages 1931/32 para 20) By reason of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure the bar of appeal under a special statute is saved. A plain reading of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure would show that an appeal shall lie from an appealable order and no other order save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code of or by any law for the time being in force. Section 104 of the Code merely recognizes appeals provided under special statute. It does not, create a right of appeal as such. It does not, therefore, bar any further appeal also, if the same is provided for under any other Act, for the time being in force. Whenever the statute provides such a bar it is so expressly stated, as would appear from Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court noted that the decision in the case of New Kenilworth Hotel (P.) Ltd.(supra) was distinguished in Chandra Kanta Sinha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and is inapplicable to a case where a single Judge has passed the order exercising an appellate power provided under a special statute and not under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. In none of the aforementioned judgments, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the ambit and scope of Section 100A of the Code, as it stands today and its effect on the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, though in Subal Paul's case (supra), the three Judge Bench did observe that this Section creates an express bar on the maintainability of further appeal. 17. At this stage, we may refer to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in P.S. Sathappan vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. (supra). In this case the Constitution Bench was called upon to decide apparently conflicting views expressed in Gulab Bai vs. Punia (supra) on the one hand and New Kennilworth Hotel's case (supra) on the other. The majority of the Constitution Bench examined the scheme of Section 104 of the Code in the light of the other provisions, including Section 4 and held that Section 104(1) specifically saves letters patent appeal and the bar contained in Section 104(2) does not apply to such appeals. The decisions in the case of New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. and

10 Resham Singh Pyara Singh were expressly overruled. However, it is important to note that the Constitution Bench emphasised that the legislature can exclude the Letters Patent Appeal. The majority judgment referred to Section 100A of the Code as amended in the year 2002 and observed as follows : (AIR page 5176/77 para 30) ``As stated hereinabove, a specific exclusion may be clear from the words of a statute even though no specific reference is made to Letters Patent. But where there is an express saving in the statute/section itself, then general words to the effect that an appeal would not lie or order will be final are not sufficient. In such cases i.e. where there is an express saving, there must be an express exclusion. Sub-section (2) of Section 104 does not provide for any express exclusion. In this context reference may be made to Section 100-A. The present Section 100-A was amended in The earlier Section 100-A, introduced in 1976, reads as follows : '100-A. No further appeal in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such Single Judge in such appeal or from any decree passed in such appeal.' It is thus to be seen that when the legislature wanted to exclude a letters patent appeal it specifically did so. The words used in Section 100-A are not by way of abundant caution. By the Amendment Acts of 1976 and 2002 a specific exclusion is provided as the legislature knew that in the absence of such words a letters patent appeal would not be barred. The legislature was aware that it had incorporated the saving clause in Section 104(1) and incorporated Section 4 CPC. Thus now a specific exclusion was provided. After 2002, Section 100-A reads as follows: '100-A. No further appeal in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge. To be noted that here again the legislature has provided for a specific exclusion. It must be stated that now by virtue of Section 100-A no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. However, it is an admitted position that the law which would prevail would be the law at the relevant time. At the relevant time neither Section 100-A nor Section 104(2) barred a letters patent appeal.'` The majority judgment also referred to Clause 44 of the Letters Patent and observed that Letters Patent is a special law vis-a-vis the Code and in case of

11 conflict, the former would prevail except when there is an exclusion of the special law like the one made by Section 100A. In paragraph 32 of the judgment, the Court observed as follows : (AIR page 5177) ``It was next submitted that clause 44 of the Letters Patent showed that Letters Patent were subject to amendment and alteration. It was submitted that this showed that a Letters Patent was a subordinate or subservient piece of law. Undoubtedly, clause 44 permits amendment or alteration of Letters Patent, but then which legislation is not subject to amendment or alteration CPC is also subject to amendments and alterations. In fact it has been amended on a number of occasions. The only unalterable provisions are the basic structure of our Constitution. Merely because there is a provision for amendment does not mean that, in the absence of an amendment or a contrary provision, the Letters Patent is to be ignored. To submit that a Letters Patent is a subordinate piece of legislation is to not understand the true nature of a Letters Patent. As has been held in Vinita Khanolkar's case and Sharda Devi's case, a Letters Patent is the charter of the High Court. As held in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania (1981 (4) S.C.C. 8, a Letters Patent is the specific law under which a High Court derives its powers. It is not any subordinate piece of legislation. As set out in the aforementioned two cases a Letters Patent cannot be excluded by implication. Further it is settled law that between a special law and a general law the special law will always prevail. A Letters Patent is a special law for the High Court concerned. The Civil Procedure Code is a general law applicable to all courts. It is wellsettled law, that in the event of a conflict between a special law and a general law, the special law must always prevail. We see no conflict between the Letters Patent and Section 104 but if there was any conflict between a Letters Patent and the Civil Procedure Code then the provisions of the Letters Patent would always prevail unless there was a specific exclusion. This is also clear from Section 4 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides that nothing in the Code shall limit or affect any special law. As set out in Section 4 CPC only a specific provision to the contrary can exclude the special law. The specific provision would be a provision like Section 100-A.'` In the course of the judgment, the Bench also clarified the observations made in Sharada Devi's case (supra) to the effect that the letters patent was akin to the constitutional powers of the High Court and observed as follows : (AIR page 5175, para 27) ``Thereafter in the case of Sharda Devi's case, the question again arose whether a letters patent appeal was maintainable in view of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. A three- Judge Bench of this Court held that a Letters Patent was a charter under which the High Courts were established and that by virtue of that charter the

12 High Court got certain powers. It was held that when a Letters Patent grants to the High Court a power of appeal, against a judgment of a Single Judge, the right to entertain such an appeal does not get excluded unless the statutory enactment excludes an appeal under the Letters Patent. It was held that as Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act did not bar a letters patent appeal, such an appeal was maintainable. At this stage it must be clarified that during arguments, relying on the sentence the powers given to a High Court under the Letters Patent are akin to the constitutional powers of a High Court in para 9 of this judgment it had been suggested that a Letters Patent had the same status as the Constitution. In our view these observations merely lay down that the powers given to a High Court are the powers with which that High Court is constituted. These observations do not put Letters Patent on a par with the Constitution.'` 18. A plain reading of the above observations makes it clear that the right of appeal conferred by the Letters Patent can be taken away by the Parliament by enacting appropriate provision in the C.P.C. and the provisions contained in Section 100A of C.P.C. expressly barred a second appeal against a judgment and order in the first appeal passed by a single Judge. 19. The effect of Section 100A of the Code on the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against an appellate order under special Act fell for consideration in a recent judgment of a two Judge Bench in Kamal Kumar Dutta and another v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. and others 2006 (7) SCC 613. In this case the appeals were preferred to the Supreme Court against the order passed by a single Judge of the High Court in a matter under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellants have alternative remedy of approaching the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It was, therefore, argued that the Court should not entertain the appeals and the same should be dismissed as the appellants have alternative remedy under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent before the Calcutta High Court. Relying on the decision in Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury (supra) it was submitted that the appeal is a vested right and cannot be taken away. Alternative submission was also made that if Clause 15 does not apply, appeal would lie under Section 483 of the Companies Act. In this connection reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Arati Dutta v. Eastern Tea Estate (P) Ltd. (1988) 1 SCC 523 and of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Co. (2003) 117 Comp Cas 651

13 (Bom). On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was urged that in view of the bar created under Section 100A no further appeal shall lie on the judgment or decree of such single Judge. Rejecting the preliminary objection the Court held as follows: (SCC pages 627 to 630) 21. But after the amendment the power which was being exercised under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is being exercised by CLB under Section 10-E of the Act. Appeal against the order passed by CLB, lies to the High Court under Section 10-F of the Act. Therefore, the position which was obtaining prior to the amendment in 1991 was that from any order passed by the Single Judge exercising the power under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, the appeal used to lie before the Division Bench of the High Court. But after the amendment the power has been given to CLB and appeal has been provided under Section 10-F of the Act. Thus, Part I-A was inserted by the amendment with effect from But the constitution of the Company Law Board and the power to decide application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act was given to CLB with effect from and appeal was provided under Section 10-F of the Act with effect from Therefore, on reading of Sections 10-E, 10-F, 397 and 398 of the Act, it becomes clear that it is a complete code that applications under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act shall be dealt with by CLB and the order of CLB is appealable under Section 10-F of the Act before the High Court. No further appeal has been provided against the order of the learned Single Judge. Mr Nariman, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that an appeal is a vested right and, therefore, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court, the appellants have a statutory right to prefer appeal irrespective of the fact that no appeal has been provided against the order of the learned Single Judge under the Act. In this connection, learned counsel invited our attention to a decision of this Court in Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury and in that it has been pointed out that the appeal is a vested right. The majority took the view that the appeal is a vested right. It was held as follows: that the contention of the applicant was well founded, that he had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court on and from the date of the suit and the application for special leave should be allowed. The vested right of appeal was a substantive right and, although it could be exercised only in case of an adverse decision, it was governed by the law prevailing at the time of commencement of the suit and comprised all successive rights of appeal from court to court, which really constituted one proceeding. Such a

14 right could be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, either expressly or by necessary intendment. 22. So far as the general proposition of law is concerned that the appeal is a vested right there is no quarrel with the proposition but it is clarified that such right can be taken away by a subsequent enactment, either expressly or by necessary intendment. Parliament while amending Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, by amending Act 22 of 2002 with effect from , took away the Letters Patent power of the High Court in the matter of appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench. Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: 100-A. No further appeal in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge. 23. Therefore, where appeal has been decided from an original order by a Single Judge, no further appeal has been provided and that power which used to be there under the Letters Patent of the High Court has been subsequently withdrawn. The present order which has been passed by CLB and against that an appeal has been provided before the High Court under Section 10-F of the Act, that is, an appeal from the original order. Then in that case no further letters patent appeal shall lie to the Division Bench of the same High Court. This amendment has taken away the power of the Letters Patent in the matter where the learned Single Judge hears an appeal from the original order. Original order in the present case was passed by CLB exercising the power under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act and appeal has been preferred under Section 10-F of the Act before the High Court. The learned Single Judge having passed an order, no further appeal will lie as Parliament in its wisdom has taken away its power. Learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to a letter from the then Law Minister. That letter cannot override the statutory provision. When the statute is very clear, whatever statement by the Law Minister made on the floor of the House, cannot change the words and intendment which is borne out from the words. The letter of the Law Minister cannot be read to interpret the provisions of Section 100-A. The intendment of the legislature is more than clear in the words and the same has to be given its natural meaning and cannot be subject to any statement made by the Law Minister in any communication. The words speak for themselves. It does not require any further interpretation by any statement made in any manner. Therefore, the power of the High Court in exercising the Letters Patent in a matter where a Single

15 Judge has decided the appeal from the original order, has been taken away and it cannot be invoked in the present context. There are no two opinions in the matter that when CLB exercised its power under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, it exercised its quasi-judicial power as original authority. It may not be a court but it has all the trapping of a court. Therefore, CLB while exercising its original jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act passed the order and against that order appeal lies to the learned Single Judge of the High Court and thereafter no further appeal could be filed. 24. In this connection, our attention was invited to a decision in Arati Dutta v. Eastern Tea Estate (P) Ltd. This was a case in which the power was exercised by the learned Single Judge under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act and against that order appeal lay to the Division Bench of the High Court under Section 483 of the Act. In that context, their Lordships observed that mere absence of procedural rules would not deprive the litigant of the substantive right conferred by the statute. We have already explained above that earlier the power under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act was being exercised by the learned Company Judge in the High Court and, therefore, appeal lay to the Division Bench under Section 483 of the Act. If the power has been exercised by the Company Judge in the High Court, then one appeal shall lie before the Division Bench of the High Court under Section 483 of the Act. But that is not the situation in the present case. Therefore, this decision cannot be of any help to the respondents. 25. In this connection, our attention was invited to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Co. In that case, the High Court took the view that despite the amendment in Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, order passed by the Single Judge in appeal arising out of the order passed by CLB under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, appeal lay to the Division Bench and in that connection, the Division Bench invoked Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure which says that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force and, therefore, the Division Bench concluded that the letters patent appeal is a statutory appeal and special enactment. Therefore, appeal shall lie to the Division Bench. We regret to say that this is not the correct position of law. We have already explained the facts above and we have explained Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to indicate that the power was specifically taken away by the legislature. Therefore, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Power Development

16 Corpn. cannot be said to be the correct proposition of law. 26. In this connection, our attention was invited to a Constitution Bench decision in P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. In this case, the Constitution Bench observed as follows: (SCC p. 675) From Section 100-A CPC, as inserted in 1976, it can be seen that when the legislature wanted to exclude a letters patent appeal it specifically did so. Again from Section 100-A, as amended in 2002, it can be seen that the legislature has provided for a specific exclusion. It must be stated that now by virtue of Section 100-A no letters patent appeal would be maintainable in the facts of the present case. However, it is an admitted position that the law which would prevail would be the law at the relevant time. At the relevant time neither Section 100-A nor Section 104(2) barred a letters patent appeal. The words used in Section 100-A are not by way of abundant caution. By the Amendment Acts of 1976 and 2002 a specific exclusion is provided as the legislature knew that in the absence of such words a letters patent appeal would not be barred. The legislature was aware that it had incorporated the saving clause in Section 104(1) and incorporated Section 4 CPC. Thus now a specific exclusion was provided. 27. Similarly, in Subal Paul v. Malina Paul their Lordships observed as follows: (SCC p. 368, para 20) Whenever the statute provides such a bar, it is so expressly stated, as would appear from Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 28. In Gandla Pannala Bhulaxmi v. Managing Director, A.P. SRTC the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a similar view in the matter. Same is the view taken by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kesava Pillai Sreedharan Pillai v. State of Kerala. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by Mr Nariman cannot be sustained and the same is overruled. 20. It is, thus, clearly held by the two Judge Bench that a Letters Patent Appeal against a decision rendered by the single Judge in an appeal arising under the special statute is also barred by Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 21. In Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India (2003 (1) S.C.C. 49), the Supreme Court observed as follows : ``Section 100-A deals with two types of cases which are decided by a Single Judge. One is where the Single Judge hears an appeal from an appellate decree or order. The question of there being any further appeal in such a case cannot and should not be contemplated. Where, however, an appeal is filed before the High Court

17 against the decree of a trial court, a question may arise whether any further appeal should be permitted or not. Even at present depending upon the value of the case, the appeal from the original decree is either heard by a Single Judge or by a Division Bench of the High Court. Where the regular first appeal so filed is heard by a Division Bench, the question of there being an intra-court appeal does not arise. It is only in cases where the value is not substantial that the rules of the High Court may provide for the regular first appeal to be heard by a Single Judge. In such a case to give a further right of appeal where the amount involved is nominal to a Division Bench will really be increasing the workload unnecessarily. We do not find that any prejudice would be caused to the litigants by not providing for intra-court appeal, even where the value involved is large. In such a case, the High Court by rules, can provide that the Division Bench will hear the regular first appeal. No fault can, thus, be found with the amended provision Section 100-A.'` 22. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it very clear that there is complete prohibition of filing a further appeal against a decree and order of a single Judge. The said legislative declaration prohibits preferring a further appeal against the judgment and decree of a single Judge if an appeal is provided in any other law for the time being in force. Thus, as prohibited by Section 100A, preferring a further appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment and decree of a single Judge is barred, not only under the Letters Patent of any High Court but also under any special enactment under which such appeal is provided. Section 15 of the Delhi High Court Act provides that the provisions of Act are subject to any provision that may be made on or after the appointed day with respect to the High Court by the legislature or other authority having power to make such provision. The non-obstinate clause in 100A of the Code has the effect of taking away the right of appeal which is available under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act. The use of the expression notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or any other law for the time being in force is clearly indicative of the legislature intention to totally bar Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment rendered by a single Judge in an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order. The language of Section 100A does not suggest that the exclusion of the right of appeal available under the Letters Patent is confined only to the matters arising under the Code and not under any enactments.

18 23. The next submission of Mr. Arvind Nigam is that even if it is held that Section 100A would bar a Letters Patent Appeal arising under a special enactment nevertheless those provisions will not operate to bar the present Letters Patent Appeal, since the proceedings commenced long prior to the insertion of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is true that right of appeal is a matter of substance and not of procedure, and such right is vested on the date when the original proceedings are instituted. However, the vested right of appeal can be taken away by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment. In Bhenoy G.Dembla v. Prem Kutir (P) Ltd., (Bom.), 2003 Company Cases (Vol.117) 643), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court to which one of us (A.P.Shah, C.J.) was a party held that the provisions of Section 100A are to the effect that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. The use of the word ``is'` would make it abundantly clear that what the legislature intended was that no further appeal should be maintainable where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided after July 1, 2002, by a single Judge of a High Court. Therefore, the necessary intendment of Section 100A is that where the appeal from an original or appellate decree is decided by a single Judge of a High Court after July 1, 2002, no further appeal would be maintainable. To hold otherwise would run contrary to the plain intendment, as well as the object and underlying purpose of Section 100A. In introducing the amended provisions of Section 100A, the legislature was concerned as much with the existing backlog of cases as the accretion to the backlog that would accrue by the institution of fresh cases after the amended provisions were brought into force. Consequently, it would be unreasonable to attribute to the legislature the intendment that while seeking to bring into effect a provision which was intended to cure the delays of litigation, the legislature would have intended to exempt from its purview all cases which have filed prior to the date on which the amendment was brought into force. As noticed earlier a similar submission was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital (supra). 24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that after insertion of Section 100A in the Code of Civil Procedure no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a single Judge in a first appeal arising out of a special enactment e.g. Indian Succession Act. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.

19 Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- REKHA SHARMA JUDGE Sd/- S.MURALIDHAR JUDGE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11945, 13625, 13626-13629 and 22318-22321 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 5156 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 31068 of 2009), Civil

More information

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs.

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No. 16809/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1830/2010 IA No. 16756/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Reserved on: 5th August, 2011 Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 FAO(OS) 502/2009 LT. COL S.D. SURIE Through: -versus-..appellant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2012 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax 10, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020...Appellant.

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent

More information

Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003

Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Supreme Court of India Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Author: Dharmadhikari Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, D.M. Dharmadhikari. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3130 of 2002 Special Leave

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 WP(C) NO.11374/2006 OCEAN PLASTICS & FIBRES (P) LIMITED

More information

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Supreme Court of India Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Author: A Kabir Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3005 of 2005 PETITIONER: Vidyawati

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: 10.10.2013 OMP 234/2013 NSSL LIMITED...PETITIONER Vs HPCL-MITTAL ENERGY LIMITED & ANR....RESPONDENTS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2017 S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2017 S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 16850 OF 2017 (@ S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No.21033/2017) REPORTABLE Himangni Enterprises.Appellant(s) VERSUS Kamaljeet Singh

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/2015 % 21 st December, 2015 1. CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through:

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.815/2007 % Date of decision: 16 th February, 2010 OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.N. Kaura with Ms. Paramjit Benipal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha, TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 HINDUSTAN INSECTICIEDES LTD.... Appellant Through Mr.

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 1 RESERVED ORDER A.F.R ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2 OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014 Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 Hon ble Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar DIXIT, Judicial Member

More information

THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL ACT, 1997 (WEST BENGAL ACT 25 OF

THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL ACT, 1997 (WEST BENGAL ACT 25 OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL ACT, 1997 (WEST BENGAL ACT 25 OF 1997) [Passed by the West Bengal Legislature] [Assent of the Governor was first published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : Date of Decision :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : Date of Decision : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : 14.02.2013 Date of Decision : 28.05.2013 LPA 858/2004 BANWARI LAL SHARMA Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate....

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3945 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.35786 OF 2016) SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF

More information

III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS.

III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS. III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS. Respondents CRP No. 4099 of 2013 Decided on 26.9.2013

More information

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH W.A. NO.122 OF 2014 In the matter of a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2014... Sri Kasinath Nayak. Petitioner -Versus- State

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011 Date of decision: 1 st September, 2011 % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. Versus THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

More information

% L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF Date of Decision: 13 th October, # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate

% L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF Date of Decision: 13 th October, # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2008 + Date of Decision: 13 th October, 2009 # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Versus $ SHAUKAT RAI (D)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO of 2008 BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.& ORS...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO of 2008 BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.& ORS... 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5099 of 2008 BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.& ORS... APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.. RESPONDENTS W I T H CIVIL APPEAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A /2011 (stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A /2011 (stay) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A. 19640/2011 (stay) Decided on: 22nd February, 2012 SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD.

More information

Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5460-5466 OF 2004 MORAN M. BASELIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS

More information

Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Mr. Murari Kumar and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advs.

Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Mr. Murari Kumar and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 13th May, 2014 FAO(OS) 579/2013 & CM No.20049/2013 (for stay) SMT. SANTOSH ARORA & ORS Through: Mr. Ankit Jain,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 2348 OF 2014 wp-2348-2014.sxw Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.. Petitioner. V/s. The

More information

Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System

Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System The Constitution of India under Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment

More information

24 Appeals and Revision

24 Appeals and Revision 24 Appeals and Revision The assessee is given a right of appeal by the Act where he feels aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority. However, the assessee has no inherent right of appeal unless

More information

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI IN THE MATTER OF SEELAN RAJ.... PETITIONER Vs PRESIDING OFFICER 1 ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON BLE COURT IN EXCERSISE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 SURINDER KAUR Through: Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate. versus SARDAR

More information

Complete Justice Under Article 142

Complete Justice Under Article 142 Complete Justice Under Article 142 The Practical Lawyer Complete Justice Under Article 142 By Dr R. Prakash* Cite as : (2001) 7 SCC (Jour) 14 Article 142 of the Constitution of India reads: "142. Enforcement

More information

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insol.) No. 134 of 2017

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insol.) No. 134 of 2017 1 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION Company Appeal (AT) (Insol.) No. 134 of 2017 [Arising out of Order dated 25 th July, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF 2011 Federation of SBI Pensioners Association & Ors....... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Ors...............

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 05.07.2011 Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No. 18758/2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER...Appellants Through: Mr.Ved Prakash

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: 11.03.2011 RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA...Petitioner Through: Mr Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr Piyush

More information

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

impugned order dated being an interim order, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of the Chancellor taking appropriat

impugned order dated being an interim order, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of the Chancellor taking appropriat Hon'ble Judges: R.V. Raveendran and G.S. Singhvi, JJ. R.V. Raveendran, J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 6937 of 2004 Decided On: 30.11.2009 Rajendra Agricultural University Vs. Ashok Kumar

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA (OS) No. 20/2002. Reserved on : 31st July, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA (OS) No. 20/2002. Reserved on : 31st July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA (OS) No. 20/2002 Reserved on : 31st July, 2008 Decided on : 8th August, 2008 MANSOOR MUMTAZ and ORS. Through : Mr. S.D. Ansari,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On: MANU/TN/3588/2011 Equivalent Citation: 2011(6)CTC11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of 2011 Decided On: 26.08.2011 Appellants: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Sivakama Sundari

More information

Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts for Recourse against Arbitral Award

Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts for Recourse against Arbitral Award Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts for Recourse against Arbitral Award By Chakrapani Misra and Arijeet Mukherjee An arbitral award may be challenged under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation

More information

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of % Judgment delivered on: January 11, Versus

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of % Judgment delivered on: January 11, Versus * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of 2001 Judgment reserved on: December 16, 2009 % Judgment delivered on: January 11, 2010 Chander Bhan S/o Shri Chhotey Lal R/o Village

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2016) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2016) VERSUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29765 of 2016) Smt. K.A. Annamma.Appellant(s) VERSUS The Secretary, Cochin

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 24.05.2011 WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.7523/2011 YUDHVIR SINGH Versus Through: PETITIONER Mr.N.S.Dalal,

More information

Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta, (1955) 1 SCR 1284

Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta, (1955) 1 SCR 1284 Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta, (1955) 1 SCR 1284 Hans Muller of Nuremburg Versus Superintendent, Presidency Jail Calcutta and Others Petitioner Respondents (Under Article

More information

BERMUDA LABOUR RELATIONS ACT : 15

BERMUDA LABOUR RELATIONS ACT : 15 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA LABOUR RELATIONS ACT 1975 1975 : 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E 5F 5G 5H 5I 5J 5K 5L 5M 5N 5O 5P Interpretation Application of Act PART I PART II ARBITRATION,

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23 rd July, 2010. + W.P.(C) 11305/2009, CM No.10831/2009 (u/s 151 CPC for stay), CM No.9694/2010 (u/o1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment) & CM No.

More information

THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 ACT NO. 66 OF 1984

THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 ACT NO. 66 OF 1984 THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 ACT NO. 66 OF 1984 [14th September, 1984.] An Act to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of,

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20 th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). % SH. SATISH CHAND KAPOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR s Through:...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, 2014 SURESH BALA & ORS Through: Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS

More information

11. To give effect to this guarantee, the IRBI may act as though the guarantors were the principal debtor to the IRBI. 6. The appellant sanctioned the

11. To give effect to this guarantee, the IRBI may act as though the guarantors were the principal debtor to the IRBI. 6. The appellant sanctioned the Hon'ble Judges: Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ. Dalveer Bhandari, J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 4613 of 2000 Decided On: 18.08.2009 Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. Vs.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3166 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.34719 of 2011) Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami & Anr. Appellant(s) :Versus.:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... APPELLANT through : Mr. Sanjeev

More information

- versus - 1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this

- versus - 1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment Reserved on: 01.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 18.03.2011 I.A. No. 14803/2010 in CS(OS) No. 1943/1998 Sita Kashyap & Anothers..

More information

PART I ARBITRATION - CHAPTER I

PART I ARBITRATION - CHAPTER I INDIAN BARE ACTS THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 No.26 of 1996 [16th August, 1996] An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeals (AT) No.101 to 105 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP Nos. 16/152/2015,

More information

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010 TO BE INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA CLAUSES THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Applicability of Act. 3. Definitions.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. SALONI MAHAJAN Through: Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

THE PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1988 ACT NO. 46 OF 1988

THE PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1988 ACT NO. 46 OF 1988 THE PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1988 ACT NO. 46 OF 1988 [6th September, 1988.] An Act to provide for detention in certain cases for the purpose of preventing

More information

CHAPATER XVII APPEAL, REVISION, REVIEW PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 1. Orders against which appeal lies. an order enhancing a penalty;

CHAPATER XVII APPEAL, REVISION, REVIEW PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 1. Orders against which appeal lies. an order enhancing a penalty; CHAPATER XVII APPEAL, REVISION, REVIEW PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS 1. Orders against which appeal lies Under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, a Government servant including a person who has ceased to be in Government

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No. 422 of 2010 C.R.PARK M, N & P BLOCKS RESIDENTS WELFARE

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No. 422 of 2010 C.R.PARK M, N & P BLOCKS RESIDENTS WELFARE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 44. + W.P.(C) No. 422 of 2010 C.R.PARK M, N & P BLOCKS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR.... Petitioners Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate. versus UNION OF

More information

BERMUDA BERMUDA INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT : 29

BERMUDA BERMUDA INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT : 29 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA BERMUDA INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT 1993 1993 : 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Short Title PART I PRELIMINARY

More information

in Electricity Sector

in Electricity Sector Department of Industrial and Management Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Forum of Regulators 4 th Capacity Building Programme for Officers of Electricity Regulatory Commissions 18 23 July,

More information

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2013

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2013 AS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA Bill No. LVII of 2013 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2013 A BILL further to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951. BE it enacted

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Judgment: R.S.A.No. 90/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Judgment: R.S.A.No. 90/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Judgment: 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 90/2007 SH. NARAIN SINGH & ORS...Appellants Through: Ms. Sukhda Dhamiza, Advocate along with

More information

The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, Amendments appended: 23 of 1972, 22 of 1994, 29 of 2007

The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, Amendments appended: 23 of 1972, 22 of 1994, 29 of 2007 The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 Act 37 of 1961 Keyword(s): Holder of any Landed Land, Survey, Survey Mark Amendments appended: 23 of 1972, 22 of 1994, 29 of 2007 DISCLAIMER: This document is

More information

Source: BOOK: International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, J. Paulsson (ed.), Suppl. 30 (January/2000)

Source: BOOK: International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, J. Paulsson (ed.), Suppl. 30 (January/2000) Source: BOOK: International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, J. Paulsson (ed.), Suppl. 30 (January/2000) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (No. 26 of 1996), [16th August 1996] India An Act

More information

KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI

KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI Assuring Assuring Compliances Compliances & Solutions & Solutions Beyond Beyond Challenge Challenge

More information

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 http://judis.nic.in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2412 of 2006 PETITIONER: Prem Singh & Ors. RESPONDENT: Birbal & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.K.

More information

MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (Legislative Department)

MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (Legislative Department) MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 22nd December, 1980/Pausa 1, 1902 (Saka) The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Writ Appeal Nos.462, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 25, 166, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131/2013 AND IN THE MATTER OF: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANR. PETITIONER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) No. 3768 of 2015 ------ M/s Tata Steel Limited, an existing Company under previous Company Law, through Mrs. MeenaLall wife of Shri BehariLall,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12581 OF 2015) THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR....APPELLANT(S)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Reserve: Date of Order:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Reserve: Date of Order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Date of Reserve: 27.1..2009 Date of Order: 05.02.2009 OMP No. 36/2009 Competent Investment Limited... Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 10.3.2011 RSA No.46/2011 VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate...Appellants Versus JASWANT RAI

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007 Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy(Dead) through LRs..Appellant(s) VERSUS Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao &

More information

THE KERALA SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT, 1961* (ACT 37 OF 1961) (AMENDED BY ACT 23 OF 1972 &Act 16 of 2000 ) CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY

THE KERALA SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT, 1961* (ACT 37 OF 1961) (AMENDED BY ACT 23 OF 1972 &Act 16 of 2000 ) CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY THE KERALA SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT, 1961* (ACT 37 OF 1961) (AMENDED BY ACT 23 OF 1972 &Act 16 of 2000 ) CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY Sections 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1439 of 2017) N. Harihara Krishnan Appellant Versus J. Thomas Respondent

More information

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1738/2013 Judgment reserved on 10 th September, 2015 Judgment delivered on 23 rd September, 2015 HARISH CHAND TANDON Through:... Plaintiff Ms. Shalini

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society & Another.Petitioners Versus All India Council

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10583-10585 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 36057-36059 OF 2016] MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC....

More information

Reserved on: 7 th August, Pronounced on: 13 th August, # SAIL EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION...Petitioner

Reserved on: 7 th August, Pronounced on: 13 th August, # SAIL EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION...Petitioner * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2254/2002 Reserved on: 7 th August, 2009 Pronounced on: 13 th August, 2009 # SAIL EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION...Petitioner! Through: None VERSUS $ STEEL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.595/2003 Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 13th January, 2012 SHRI VIRENDER SINGH Through: Mr. R.C. Chopra,

More information

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam.

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 429 of 2008 The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and GRENADA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. Mr. P. R. Campbell for the Appellant Mr. S. E. Commissiong for the Respondent

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and GRENADA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. Mr. P. R. Campbell for the Appellant Mr. S. E. Commissiong for the Respondent SAINT VINCENT & THE GRENADINES CIVIL APPEAL NO.1 OF 1997 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ESLEE CARBERRY and GRENADA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. C.M. Dennis Byron Chief

More information

(CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008

(CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008 AGNESS SIMBAMBILI GABBA. APPELLANT VERSUS DAVID SAMSON GABBA RESPONDENT

More information

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28th February, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2305/2010 SUSHMA SURI & ANR... Plaintiffs

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI 1 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 133 of 2017 [Arising out of order dated 10 th August, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company

More information

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI BY COURT: 1 W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India) Parmanand Pandey & Anr.. Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors.....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, Date of decision: 4th February, 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, Date of decision: 4th February, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, 1998 Date of decision: 4th February, 2011. W.P.(C) 8711-15/2005 & CM No.8018/2005 & CM No.6522/2005 (both for stay) FEDERATION OF

More information

INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM THE PRIMARY ORIGINS OF LAW: The Indian Constitution customary law case law, and Statutes (legislation).

INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM THE PRIMARY ORIGINS OF LAW: The Indian Constitution customary law case law, and Statutes (legislation). INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM The Indian Legal System is one of the oldest legal systems in the entire history of the world. It has altered as well as developed over the past few centuries to absorb inferences from

More information

CHAPTER 15. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENTAL DETERMINATIONS IN GENERAL

CHAPTER 15. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENTAL DETERMINATIONS IN GENERAL JUDICIAL REVIEW 210 Rule 1501 CHAPTER 15. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENTAL DETERMINATIONS IN GENERAL Rule 1501. Scope of Chapter. 1502. Exclusive Procedure. 1503. Improvident Appeals or Original Jurisdiction

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 1021 OF 2016 M/s Andrew Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. N-2, Phase IV, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcette, Goa-403 722, India.

More information